One of the things I love most about the duped--you know, George Bush supporters--is their refusal to risk getting in a discussion exchanging points of view. Obviously, this reflects in large part that they can't really formualte a point of view or structure an argument backed with facts and/or reason. Right? What "reason" do you fall back on to defend an administration that's fucked up so much on so many different levels?

So, if you're a Bush supporter, you do two things in encounters with dissent or opposition whether it's within your own party or not: You rely on dirty tricks, lies and distortions. You call in the Swift Boat Cowards and Karl Rove, and you let 'em go to work.

The other thing you do is you insult and disparage without allowing yourself to get into a discussion of the actual issues involved. Someone has an issue with a policy? Don't discuss or debate the issue--that's a surefire way to lose. Instead, comeback with "oh, you're a liberal"; "you're a traitor"; "you don't support the troops"; "you want innocent babies to be murdered"; "you want Americans to live in fear"; "you want to give criminals vacations instead of punishment" and the list goes on and on. And as far as they're concerned, they win. People don't have time to pay attention to details of issues, so, keep calling someone a "baby-killer" and you'll win. After all, who wants to support or vote for a baby-killer?

And sadly, in our rapid-fire news cycle culture and an environment in which people simply don't have the time to concentrate or even think about what they think about the issues of the day, this strategy is frequently just enough to win--and that's what counts.

Except that it is killing our already rapidly-deteriorating country.

We are being led down a very dangerous path, and that path is overcrowded with cowards and ignoramuses who unfathomably put their politics ahead of the best interests of their country.

This is an invitation to any conservatives out there who are willing to discuss in detail why they support George Bush on any given issue.

I have asked the same of numerous cowards here and all I get are insults, or "I don't have time to respond", etc.

How sad.

But my friend Paddy did.

Here it is:

It's the tolerance, and even celebration, of successful lying that has cost the GOP its soul and conscience. I prefer being out of power to the swamp of self-righteous immorality that those people are living in right now. Jesus had it right: "whited sepulchers."

If Jesus ran against a Rove candidate, here's what the attack ads would say (Imagine the usual voice of immoral Republican attack ads, the Minnesota guy who does "the High Life" commercials for Miller):

"Can you trust this man? [close-up of picture of Jesus with long tangled hair and beard]

"He wants you to sell all you own, and give the proceeds to the shiftless poor.

"The most respected religious leaders in our country call him a blasphemer.

"Family values? He's been heard to say that he has come to divide father from son and mother from daughter.

"He's unmarried -- at 33. And he travels with a group of 12 young male 'disciples.'

"He has been caught dining and drinking on tax collectors' tab -- but when asked by a citizen whether he was pro-tax, he told voters, 'Pay up.'

"He intervened in a capital case in order to save the life of a guilty party.

"And it is well known that he consorts with prostitutes and praises foreign military officers.

"Jesus Christ -- we just can't afford him."

From today's NYT:

The Conservative Epiphany

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 10, 2006

Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administrationis "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.

Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too.

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.

And if you're a former hawk who now concedes that the administration exaggerated the threat from Iraq, you're to be applauded for your open-mindedness. But if you warned three years ago that the administration was hyping the case for war, you were a conspiracy theorist.

The truth is that everything the new wave of Bush critics has to say was obvious long ago to any commentator who was willing to look at the facts.

Mr. Bartlett's book is mainly a critique of the Bush administration's fiscal policy. Well, the administration's pattern of fiscal dishonesty and irresponsibility was clear right from the start to anyone who understands budget arithmetic. The chicanery that took place during the selling of the 2001 tax cut — obviously fraudulent budget projections, transparently deceptive advertising about who would benefit and the use of blatant accounting gimmicks to conceal the plan's true cost — was as bad as anything that followed.

The false selling of the Iraq war was almost as easy to spot. All the supposed evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program was discredited before the war — and it was the threat of nukes, not lesser W.M.D., that stampeded Congress into authorizing Mr. Bush to go to war. The administration's nonsensical but insistent rhetorical linkage of Iraq and 9/11 was also a dead giveaway that we were being railroaded into an unnecessary war.

The point is that pundits who failed to notice the administration's mendacity a long time ago either weren't doing their homework, or deliberately turned a blind eye to the evidence.

But as I said, better late than never. Born-again Bush-bashers like Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Sullivan, however churlish, are intellectually and morally superior to the Bushist dead-enders who still insist that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, and will soon be claiming that we lost the war in Iraq because the liberal media stabbed the troops in the back. And reporters understandably consider it newsworthy that some conservative voices are now echoing longstanding liberal critiques of the Bush administration.

It's still fair, however, to ask people like Mr. Bartlett the obvious question: What took you so long?

The ignoramuses win.

Again.

Things you have to believe to be a Republican today....

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq and Iran

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages, censoring the Internet and electronic surveillance of innocent Americans.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.